Search for other papers by Leyla Bahmany in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This book analyses the risk of double recovery in investment arbitration and suggests a solution to the problems it creates. The risk of double recovery has not been thoroughly addressed by investment arbitration tribunals or commentators, and this has resulted in host states’ concerns about the integrity of the ISDS system. The solution that is set forth in this work neither suggests a fundamental change to present legal doctrines and practice, nor requires a fundamental change to the regulatory system to take place in order for the solution to become operative. The proposed solution consists of two parts: first, recognising the prohibition of double recovery as a principle in international investment law; and second, setting out a legal mechanism to implement the principle in order to avoid double recovery. The mechanism (which covers both scenarios of parallel proceedings and sequential proceedings) utilizes three procedural tools: the res judicata principle, the lis pendens principle, and the power of tribunals/courts to stay proceedings. Traditionally, for res judicata and lis pendens to be applicable, a triple identity test (same parties, same cause of action, and same relief/object) must be met. The book argues that the traditional application of the identity test in this international context is misguided, and proposes instead a coherent, principled identity test that is in line with the underlying policies of international investment law. The book also explains that the term “double recovery” does not entirely correspond to the phenomenon it is known to represent and suggests that the term “double compensation” be used instead.